Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read). Description adds that it uses a GET endpoint and requires an org ID, but does not cover pagination limits, rate limits, or parameter interaction details. No contradiction with annotations; description adds modest value beyond structured data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences covering purpose, prerequisite, and API path. No wasted words; front-loaded with core action. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, description provides the key input (organization ID) and the endpoint. However, it omits details on pagination behavior, filter semantics beyond parameter names, and expected response structure. Adequate but leaves moderate gaps for a list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so schema already documents all parameters. Description adds value by specifying the source for 'organization' (from forge_list_organizations), but other parameters are not further explained. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does most of the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'List servers in an organization', specifying verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling list tools (e.g., forge_list_databases, forge_list_organizations) by focusing on servers and requiring an organization ID. The HTTP path detail reinforces the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage guidance: call forge_list_organizations first to get the organization ID. This sets clear invocational context. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or compare with alternatives like forge_list_sites, which slightly reduces guidance completeness.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.